Trump Pushes to Knock Hundreds of Thousands Off of Food Stamps While COVID-19 Death Toll Rises

This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Trump Pushes to Knock Hundreds of Thousands Off of Food Stamps While COVID-19 Death Toll Rises

Originally Posted by TU Curmudgeon

So, do you honestly believe that someone is going to get pregnant and have a child (or get married) just so that they can collect "Food Stamps"?

ComeONNOW!!!

If adding a dependent transforms a poor person (perhaps now sharing a bedroom with others) who does not qualify for multiple "safety net" programs (SNAP is but one of them) into a needy household which does (thus being able to move into their own, less crowded, apartment) that is certainly likely to influence behavior.

ďThe reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.Ē ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

Re: Trump Pushes to Knock Hundreds of Thousands Off of Food Stamps While COVID-19 Death Toll Rises

Originally Posted by VanceMack

the part where you input the 'qualifier' regarding he current istuation.

You should actually read my post. I used no qualifiers.

I pointed out that the current situation illustrates one reason why it's a bad policy.

You believe the government welfare policy that says capable able bodied people can just sit at home and do nothing and collect benefits is acceptable and I believe cable able bodied adults without dependents should be required to work a minimum of 20 hours.

Or, you can drop the ideological bull****, and actually try to understand the program.

- 10% of recipients are disabled
- 10% of recipients are 60 or older
- 45% of SNAP recipients are children
- Roughly 30% of SNAP recipients are on it for a year or less
- Most working-age SNAP recipients work, but have trouble finding stable employment, often because of health reasons, or because they have to take care of someone else
- Less than 2% of SNAP recipients may lose eligibility because of the rule change

So right off the bat, the idea that SNAP recipients are all a bunch of unmotivated grifters is basically nonsense.

SNAP benefits are also small -- it works out to $1.40 per person, per meal. Would you quit your job for that?

FYI, it is rural counties in the South and Southwest, where work is not always easy to find, that rely most heavily on SNAP.

It should also be obvious that few people choose to be unemployed. Again, that is clearly illustrated by current conditions.

To put all this another way: Callous people have spent decades trying to destroy the safety net in the US. And yet, despite their efforts, there is no correlation between either unemployment rates, or the labor force participation rate, and changes to safety nets. It's almost like... like... unemployment rates are predominantly influenced by structural economic issues, instead of individual choices!!! Woah. So crazy.

"Everyone should listen to me all the time about everything." - Rosa Diaz

Re: Trump Pushes to Knock Hundreds of Thousands Off of Food Stamps While COVID-19 Death Toll Rises

Originally Posted by Visbek

You should actually read my post. I used no qualifiers.

I pointed out that the current situation illustrates one reason why it's a bad policy.

Or, you can drop the ideological bull****, and actually try to understand the program.

- 10% of recipients are disabled
- 10% of recipients are 60 or older
- 45% of SNAP recipients are children
- Roughly 30% of SNAP recipients are on it for a year or less
- Most working-age SNAP recipients work, but have trouble finding stable employment, often because of health reasons, or because they have to take care of someone else
- Less than 2% of SNAP recipients may lose eligibility because of the rule change

So right off the bat, the idea that SNAP recipients are all a bunch of unmotivated grifters is basically nonsense.

SNAP benefits are also small -- it works out to $1.40 per person, per meal. Would you quit your job for that?

FYI, it is rural counties in the South and Southwest, where work is not always easy to find, that rely most heavily on SNAP.

It should also be obvious that few people choose to be unemployed. Again, that is clearly illustrated by current conditions.

To put all this another way: Callous people have spent decades trying to destroy the safety net in the US. And yet, despite their efforts, there is no correlation between either unemployment rates, or the labor force participation rate, and changes to safety nets. It's almost like... like... unemployment rates are predominantly influenced by structural economic issues, instead of individual choices!!! Woah. So crazy.

The current situation is an extreme. Prior to the apandemic there was no excuse for able bodied adults to not find at least part time work. The goal in social services is to take people from a dependent to a whole status. You have to engage to achieve that status.

And the fact is you are making MY point. This policy change has nothing to do with the majority of recipients and doesnt target hose incapable or unable. It targets the ABLE.

Re: Trump Pushes to Knock Hundreds of Thousands Off of Food Stamps While COVID-19 Death Toll Rises

Demanding that people must find work to accept assistance is bit like bull****.

What makes anyone believe there are jobs available for all that need work?

The real BS is the fact that millions of USA jobs have gone abroad which began in earnest under Reagan/Bush and so did preferential tax codes that support USA employment beyond our borders. Then we have Mitt Romney putting a lot of debt on the backs of USA industry which forces bankruptcy then USA job losses then like magic these corporations are found beyond our borders while Mitt, His wife and partners make zillions of dollars ...... ever heard of leveraged buyouts? Leveraged Buyout Financing should be stricken from the loan industry.

So conservative thinkers the people you worship are killing USA employment yet YOU are under the impression that jobs are available under every rock. There is no excuse for that type of lame thinking.

Re: Trump Pushes to Knock Hundreds of Thousands Off of Food Stamps While COVID-19 Death Toll Rises

The Hidden Benefits of Food Stamps

Research shows the much-maligned aid to the poor buys broad economic and public health gains.

When food stamps get spent, we all benefit. Despite critics’ focus on the costs of SNAP,*research*has shown that these dollars are among the best forms of government stimulus. Food stamp spending generates local economic activity, jobs in the farm and retail sectors and beyond.

- You may simply be between jobs (again, a frequent reason why unemployed people apply for SNAP).

- The local, national and/or global economy crashes, and takes your job with it. (That keeps happening, by the way.)

When it comes to safety nets, current situation is only extreme in the rapidity in which it hit employment. Previous recessions are slower, but have much the same effect: Not enough jobs, too many job seekers.

The goal in social services is to take people from a dependent to a whole status. You have to engage to achieve that status.

And in your mind, starvation is the best way to achieve this?

Again, SNAP benefits are so low, that the idea it encourages long-term dependency is absurd. The program also gradually phases out, meaning recipients aren't punished when they earn a higher income.

Oh, and plenty of nations have halfway decent safety nets -- and aren't overwhelmed with hordes of slackers, and have good growth and employment rates. Of course, one reason for that is the benefits often help people who want to work, such as offering child care and health care. What a freakin' concept.

And the fact is you are making MY point. This policy change has nothing to do with the majority of recipients and doesnt target hose incapable or unable. It targets the ABLE.

It also targets people who are temporarily unemployed due to no fault of their own -- whose ranks just grew by well over 10 million, and counting.

And yet again, expanding or cutting safety nets has no effect whatsoever on the number of people who want to work. Your fundamental premise is obviously wrong, and buoyed not by evidence, but by ideology.

- You may simply be between jobs (again, a frequent reason why unemployed people apply for SNAP).

- The local, national and/or global economy crashes, and takes your job with it. (That keeps happening, by the way.)

When it comes to safety nets, current situation is only extreme in the rapidity in which it hit employment. Previous recessions are slower, but have much the same effect: Not enough jobs, too many job seekers.

And in your mind, starvation is the best way to achieve this?

Again, SNAP benefits are so low, that the idea it encourages long-term dependency is absurd. The program also gradually phases out, meaning recipients aren't punished when they earn a higher income.

Oh, and plenty of nations have halfway decent safety nets -- and aren't overwhelmed with hordes of slackers, and have good growth and employment rates. Of course, one reason for that is the benefits often help people who want to work, such as offering child care and health care. What a freakin' concept.

It also targets people who are temporarily unemployed due to no fault of their own -- whose ranks just grew by well over 10 million, and counting.

And yet again, expanding or cutting safety nets has no effect whatsoever on the number of people who want to work. Your fundamental premise is obviously wrong, and buoyed not by evidence, but by ideology.

Re: Trump Pushes to Knock Hundreds of Thousands Off of Food Stamps While COVID-19 Death Toll Rises

Originally Posted by VanceMack

Yes. People on government assistance need to work...not live their life on the dole as a crippled dependent pet. I know that’s a hard pill for leftists to swallow.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe one day you’ll need government assistance. You could easily come down with a life-threatening illness, leukemia or a brain tumor, wind up in circumstances where you’ll need SNAP in order to eat. Maybe unforeseen circumstances will hit you with unemployment and without a backup plan and you’ll need SNAP. The only way you can justify your ****ed up beliefs is to keep spouting lazy welfare queen stereotypes. But whatever makes you feel better about your about having to live with your position

Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he can sit in a boat, drinking beer all day while you fool around with his Woman.

Re: Trump Pushes to Knock Hundreds of Thousands Off of Food Stamps While COVID-19 Death Toll Rises

Originally Posted by ttwtt78640

If adding a dependent transforms a poor person (perhaps now sharing a bedroom with others) who does not qualify for multiple "safety net" programs (SNAP is but one of them) into a needy household which does (thus being able to move into their own, less crowded, apartment) that is certainly likely to influence behavior.

So you DO honestly believe that someone is going to get pregnant and have a child (or get married) just so that they can collect "Food Stamps".

Why does that make me think that there are too many "t"s and too few "i"s in your "netnick"?